Icelandic MP Claims US Vendetta Against WikiLeaks 227
Stirling Newberry writes "Icelandic MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir details more of the evidence for what she calls a 'judicial vendetta' against WikiLeaks and its volunteers, including attempts to gain access to her Twitter account. Her efforts to block the National Defense Authorization Act were discussed here previously. The story was taken up last year by Glenn Greenwald and Wired. As a result, the International Parliamentarian Union adopted a resolution on her case. What's new? She asserts that there is a grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks and related organizations, and is calling on Sweden to provide assurances that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange not be re-extradited to the U.S. She says, 'There is no doubt that the U.S. wants to get even with WikiLeaks.'"
seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
they only feed the fire by going after him
the "damage" assange did is done, and there's no way you can hide what has been revealed
just forget about him. move on
because all the efforts the USA goes through just feeds the myth and makes the man a hero, deservedly or not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's pretty obvious what crimes he committed, he's not even denying it.
Exactly what crimes are you talking about? The rape charges he denies, and leaking secret US documents is not a crime for an Australian citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pretty obvious Assange collaborated with Manning to steal secret documents.
That's a crime for sure.
For Manning, who was under US jurisdiction, sure.
For Assange, who wasn't, which law, exactly did he break in this instance, under which jurisdiction?
I know it's a right-wing American dream that US law applies to non-Americans outside the US, while US citizens are not subject to any other country's laws. It's time to wake up, because that is just a dream. In the real world, if the US wants its laws to be recognized, the US has to also recognize the law of other countries. Even when it lets people walk free.
Re: (Score:2)
I
Re: (Score:3)
I have to check you there on the "right-wing" appellation, as if it's only one political party that's responsible for this blatant bit of dirty work by the US. You *are* aware of who holds power over the State Dept, the WH, the military, US intelligence agencies, etc, right?
You are aware that Barack Obama is a center right president, right? He lies somewhere between Reagan and Nixon on the political spectrum. The country has shifted so far to the right anymore that the traditionally progressive party is mo
Re: (Score:2)
A rightwing and a nutcase rightwing (and a growing lunatic fringe out of their heads rightwing).
This is incorrect. The US has a fundamentally different system of government based on totally different principles than European nations.
This is comparing apples to oranges.
Other governments generally start from the position that the government allows people certain amounts of freedom. The US starts from the position that people are naturally free, and we agree as a majority to consent to allow the government certain limited powers which can be altered or abolished as the people see fit.
It's the whole turni
Re: (Score:2)
The whole concept of the martyr is overrated. People like to bring up Jesus Christ forgetting that it was the official adoption of the religion by the empire that actually brought it to power.
Simply going after someone and being fairly relentless about it has a long history of success.
As to whether this is moral or just... that's a different argument. But this is having a chilling effect and many people that might otherwise want to play this game choosing otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
...they only feed the fire by going after him...
No, they're doing a very good job of distracting people from digging for any real info in all the chaff.
Re: (Score:3)
no, completely wrong (Score:2)
the essence of martyrdom is that the martyr suffer. there is no such thing as a martyr who hasn't suffered for a cause. everyone sees them suffer, and this inspires them to suffer for the cause as well. previously ambivalent sympathisers now become active participants
that's the psychology in play here
so if you don't want to inspire martyrdom, you don't create martyrs, you don't torture them or make them suffer
you let them get off unharmed, and they fade away, uninspirational and unimportant
the process you a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the U.S. is instigating the situation with the rape accusations I don't think they're just doing it to get hold of Assange.
Wikileaks released thousands of diplomatic cables and god knows what else since Assange's arrest and what has anyone heard about their contents? All I hear in the mass media is "blah blah rape blah blah extradition". I think this would pass as a masterful bit of misdirection.
They may very well even not bother extraditing him from Sweden, maybe just make sure he goes down for rape, s
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that were true, wouldn't that be exactly the opposite of the point of trying to send that message?
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:4, Insightful)
Of those who know who he is, I'd bet most think he is a rapist.
I think that's the reason they pushed the women to bring charges - to discredit him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So is your argument that because the US government has done crappy stuff in the past, that anyone the US government doesn't like should get a get-out-of-jail-card "just in case" and not have to stand trial even for serious charges?
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. What he's pointing out is that various members of the US government are willing to sacrifice the farm for a cow, and should be taken out back and summarily executed.
The price of finding OBL, or rather, in conducting this vaccination ruse, is already being paid; the global attempt to annihilate Polio is now in jeopardy because of it. If the history of botched American relations is anything to go by, this will come back to... inconvenience us at an ill-fated moment. And on behalf of those Americans who will be paying the price for this act of stupidity, I wish to salute all those involved for their dedication to promoting idiocy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Complete Nonsense. Islamics in both Nigeria and Pakistan were making up all sorts of BS before the fake vaccination program to dissuade their followers from participating in the vaccine program. With success leading to continuing polio outbreaks well before OBL's death.
They are the only ones responsible.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the US Govt's abuse of the polio vaccination service, every NGO representative worldwide is going to be viewed as a spy for the US by anyone with half a brain. This is going to severely limit their ability to try to help people in the third world.
It doesn't make any difference that the Islamist groups out there were already suspicious of NGO reps - the US went and confirmed their suspicions completely. This will only serve to make some people think the Islamists are right in other things they say. We should not be doing things to make them look more credible :(
Re: (Score:2)
It appears in retrospect that they were right to be concerned.
Complete horseshit. (Score:3)
You mean like Jenny McCarthy in the west on vaccines and autism? Nah, it's just those crazy mooslims that have weird ideas. But unlike McCarthy, those people in that part of the world, and not just the old men in the hills, now have a perfe
Re: (Score:3)
I see, so its not abusing the trust people put in doctors that is the problem, its being truthful about it that is the problem?
Frankly, i think Doctors, of all professions, should be held to a higher standard than that. They take an oath, and to setup a clinic for the purpose of abusing trust to betray the confidentiality of their patients for ANY REASON, they are doing humanity a disservice.
This man deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail, as does any doctor engaged in similar activities.
Its good th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fuck you. The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laddin a good ten years ago - on the crazy condition that the U.S. provide some proof for it's claims that Bin Laddin was responsible for 911. Instead, the U.S. has spent the last decade bombing the shit out of large parts of Asia, committing many multiples the amount of civilian deaths that we've ever suffered in terrorist attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Standing always with the victims of rape, unless the alleged perpetrator is Julian Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
Would those women be considered rape victims in any country except Sweden?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the British lower court found, and the British upper court confirmed, that they would be in the UK as well? Yes, unless you think the UK is part of Sweden. What part of "breaking the terms of consent", "pinning someone down to try to force sex", "having sex with a sleeping person", and "rubbing genitalia against an unwilling participant" do you think are only applicable to Sweden?
Re: (Score:2)
The part where they (the victims) only decided it was rape after finding out about the other woman?
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
I've written about this before several times, so I don't want to have to write it all again; here's a link [dailykos.com] instead.
And, FYI, according to the charges, the first woman told friends at the party that same night about the "violent" sex with Assange and that she didn't feel safe, then subsequently moved out of her own apartment until he left. The second woman freaked out immediately after Assange started having unprotected sex with her while she was sleeping (something she hadn't even done with her boyfriend of 2 1/2 years). They only brought *charges* after talking.
It took me about three months before I was able to simply use the word "rape" for what happened to me. It moved from "an unwanted sexual experience" to "some of my friends tell me I should call it rape" to "rape or something like that" before I could accept just using the term. You don't want to see yourself as a victim and you don't want to empower the perpetrator. You just want to try to forget it and move on. It's only when it becomes obvious that you can't just do that that you have to face up to it. I'm still trying to deal with some of the effects, like a fear of saying no (because if you don't say no, you can't be raped... I know, that's messed up, but I'm trying to get past it, and I'm doing better).
People have often berated me for not reporting it (like most rape victims), on the grounds that he is free and could well do it again. But that's easy to say from your ivory tower (sadly, I in the past once did the same thing to a rape victim, something I now really regret). The last thing you want is to have to relive it and have people accuse you of being a liar, a slut, etc; you just want to get on with your life and not think about it. However, if I had talked to someone a couple days after it happened and found that the same guy had just done the same thing to another girl... I don't know how that would have my altered course of actions, but it definitely would have affected me.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for sharing this.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The UK lower court found, and the high court upheld, that all four counts would be illegal even under *British* law. And the accusations aren't at all like you present them [guardian.co.uk].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only people for whom he will be a martyr are those for whom the message "we will get you" is being sent.
Such as the Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir who used to be an activist working for Wikileaks, something you think an honest summary would mention.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Interesting)
You posted the other day against Assange. Obviously you have an agenda, I may have one, too. But I'm not being paid. Are you?
Now, the US are in fact inverting History by demanding and getting a non-national to be extradited (that TV site guy from England). This is even more significant on the 4th of July. Do you thing the founding fathers (the ones who gave their blood) wanted it that way?
And the reasons? The reasons for all that? Oil and the mythical beast called "intellectual property" -- as if one could be entitled to own any idea. Did you see the voting against ACTA on Europe? 478 to 39. Let me translate for you: that's the way you say, on political terms, "no fscking way, now go home".
You are your country now. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and all the ol' good guys did their part and risked their lives. Were things different and they would be hung up. It was not just risky, it was noble -- even today I cannot explain to sheepish idiots why having Freedom is important. Just imagine what it was back then.
And then, now, you get fine Politicians who do what we have seen in these last 15 or so years and people post here "many will be okay with using fake charges to get him into U.S. custody via Sweden". And guess what? I bet they're nodding and saying "Yeah", just like you (probably).
The USA has been a great country and deserved better people than the ones it got nowadays.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Funny)
are you suggesting she likes it without rubber?
She's Icelandic.......she likes it with blubber.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll agree with your first point (though most people know of "that Wikileaks guy", and some vague notion that the government has tried to frame him for something-or-other); On your second point, I have yet to meet a non-feminist who doesn't consider this a blatant attempt to destroy a random guy's life for embarrassing the US government.
Assange may count as the worst sort of scum. I have 100% confidence he has no shot whatsoever at ever getting anything even remotely resembling a fair trial, either in Sweden or in the US.
I only hope "we" let him go down in a Swedish court rather than one of our sham anti-terrorism tribunals - They have a hell of a lot nicer prisons than we do.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is really, really sad. "Famous person we like accused of rape" automatically equals "accusers are liars". It's bad enough to have anyone treat you as a liar in a rape case, which is something that always happens. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be in the crosshairs of Assange's millions of followers worldwide.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
How about:
-Evidence of US soldiers murdering civilians
-How the US was lying about keeping track of "collateral damage"
-Proof of how the US gave Saddam a green-light to invade Kuwait
I'm too lazy to find links for those examples, but google should get them quickly enough.
There are many more examples, but the point is that while previously people only had suspicions about the US's wrongdoing, now there's evidence. That's the first step in doing anything about it. The cables I'm sure have also had repercussions diplomatically, what with all the cases of US ambassadors lying through their teeth. The leaks have also taken away a lot of the US's credibility, which will probably impact them strongly in the future, especially with regards to situations like Iran, and whatnot.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I didn't realize that the US-Iraq conversations, pre-1991 invasion of Kuwait was part of what Assange or Manning had in their documents. Second, it's highly misleading to say that the US gave Iraq the green light to invade Kuwait. The worst you can say is that the US didn't tell Iraq that they would counterattack if Saddam invaded Kuwait. More specifically, the US said it didn't have an opinion on the Iraq-Kuwait oil disputes (both countries were drawing from some of the same oil reservoirs, and were having a dispute over it). When you say the US "gave Saddam a green-light to invade Kuwait" you make it sound like the US was all "yeah, buddy, go ahead and invade Kuwait" when that's not at all what happened.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:4, Insightful)
The worst you can say is that the US didn't tell Iraq that they would counterattack if Saddam invaded Kuwait. More specifically, the US said it didn't have an opinion on the Iraq-Kuwait oil disputes (both countries were drawing from some of the same oil reservoirs, and were having a dispute over it).
US Government assured the Saddam administration they wouldn't interfere if Saddam invaded Kuwait, because "it's an internal regional matter".
This is effectively (or at the very least indirectly) giving him a green-light.
Geo-political events are not a game of checkers, but it is more akin to multi-dimensional chess.
Re: (Score:3)
Mommy, can we play with this old shotgun?
I don't care, do whatever.
MOST reasonable people would say that "Mommy" gave them the green light there.
Re: (Score:3)
Where have you been? That has been the whole of American foreign policy for decades.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We've had that from multiple sources before anyway.
It's one thing to cheer for your team but another to be blind to the fairly public stuffups of various agencies in dealing with foreign policy at the time. The USA was informed and flocks of memos about it flew like birds to
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to apologize to foreign countries for the antics of the Repubmocrat party, over the last century of so.
They really don't represent the population being held captive and misinformed. Nor do they represent the Constitution, though they are sworn to uphold it. But then,MOST world leaders are pieces of shit anyway. Too bad for us all.
On the other hand, there are more of us than politicians and perhaps we should schedule a worldwide "Take over everything and fix it" day.
Sounds frie
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Horribly misleading graph. It makes it look like the US is super-popular when in fact the US simply has a higher positive/negative response rate than other countries. The net positives for each country are actually:
Germany: 23% with 62% responding
US: 22% with 79% responding
Japan: 18% with 62% responding
France: 17% with 61% responding
UK: 12% with 64% responding
China: 4% with 77% responding
Russia: -4% with 77% responding
If we scale that up to a standard 100% baseline we get, in order:
Germany: 37%
Japan: 29%
F
They had to publish all (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, most of the documents weren't important and some that were should probably have stayed secret... but that means they would've had to cherry pick which documents to publish. If they'd have cherry picked, people would have said "You obviously have some agenda, as you cherry pick documents that present [entity we like] in a bad light".
Also, by publishing everything they allow people to analyze not only what there was but also what wasn't there.
Also, there is no way that they would've been able to know what documents were important and what not. In some countries the press cross-checked the leaked stuff with their politicians' negotiations and foreign trips, saw if their politicians' public statements matched the data found in documents, etc... but there is no way that Assange or even some major newspaper would've been able to do that all alone.
So... yeah. I am not in the "everything government/officials do should be public" camp as I think officials should be able to do their work and have honest exchanges between each other without the press being able to take quotes out of context to produce artificial scandals... but I don't think that saying "Only x% of the published documents were important" is that good argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before Assange went rogue, the policy of Wikileaks was to only publish material where secrecy had been misused to cover up for bad things. That's a clear policy, and any organisation accusing them of cherrypicking is free to publish the context.
Yes, that would have meant going over all the stuff which would have taken years, and Assange didn't have the patience for that. But if he did, the papers would have had to concentrate on the truly important parts, and maybe Wikileaks wouldn't be bankrupt today.
This
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that would have meant going over all the stuff which would have taken years, and Assange didn't have the patience for that. But if he did, the papers would have had to concentrate on the truly important parts, and maybe Wikileaks wouldn't be bankrupt today.
Or maybe he would've released 1 or 2 sensitive pieces of information, and the US government would've immediately persecuted him and his organization before it could release any more embarrassing stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The US had plenty of time to act if they wanted to, they had already questioned them [slashdot.org] before the release of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's hardly the same as the opportunity a drip-drip effect of revelations would have presented them with to stop Wikileaks before anything else was released.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious tautology is obvious.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
I thing the biggest thing he revealed was how mundane most information truly was.. and how out of control the US 'classified by default' culture has become.
Well... something about some of the information sparked revolution in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya... you'd think the US would want to give Assange a medal for helping to accomplish what the secrets agencies of the West could not. And it would be great if all the US wanted was to extradite him... because the US has no legal standing to do so... is everyone forgetting about extraordinary rendition? That's what would be keeping me up nights... a bag over the head and a Polish vacation.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You sure have an odd idea of the meaning of the word 'assassinate'.
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:seriously, the USA is just making a martyr (Score:5, Interesting)
If you believe what you wrote, then I assume you also believe that the military should stop pushing the BS about how accurate it is and how well it can tell civilians from militants, and openly admit that it can't tell the difference between things like a camera and an RPG from firing range and will quite readily mow down anyone who they can't tell whether is a threat or not?
Do you not also think that for civilians to know whether they want to endorse military action, they need to know this, and to be able to see what war is actually like than the sanitized, sterile picture presented?
While I think Assange is an arse who's simply trying to avoid jail for crimes unrelated to his political activity, I think that in this sort of regard, Wikileaks has done a lot of good.
Re: (Score:3)
as hard as I am on the military and people who join it (also not a fan, on various levels), I mostly agree, but am of two minds.
I can excuse the soldiers for being so callous and dealing with a stressful situation to the bvest of their abilities. I understand their role.
However, they are not the only actors or the only ones with a role. I think its disgusting that situations like this come up. Situations like this are the result of war, so I think its entirely right that we see it, and that many of us have
Re: (Score:2)
Do you prefer mass murder?
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks was doing just fine keeping the *real* secrets hidden until a rogue media outlet spilled everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the leaks, I know who's bidding we'll be doing when we go to war with Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pity none of those links shows anyone actually being killed. Did you fail reading comprehension?
Re: (Score:2)
you're claiming that people died as a result of the leaks, and you think that requesting some sort of evidence of a single person that has died is unreasonable to believe you?
now i understand how the right can believe so much.
you might also try clicking the seventh result from your link.
U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.
note:that story is for 2010, however i cannot find any instanced of deaths since then.
here's another tip for you, the fact that a something occurs in google search results does not mean that that thing happened, or perhaps i [google.com.au]
Iceland (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We already tried to give you Iceland. But you did not want it. And I don't blame you for that.
Re:Iceland (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't know who "we" and "you" are in this post, but Iceland is awesome. Freaking beautiful landscape, freaking beautiful skyscapes, super-creative population, great food, no summer heat, surprisingly mild winters (warmer than NYC, for example), virtually no pollution, great infrastructure compared to the population density, virtually no crowds, awesome music and party scene, a well educated and generally non-bigoted populace, clean energy, abundant volcanic hot water delivered straight to the home, etc. I love my adoptive country. :)
Re: (Score:2)
And kill whales. Let's not forget they eat whale there.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually rather rare that people eat whale here. It's probably fair to say that most people *have* eaten it, but almost nobody eats it regularly. A surprisingly high percent is sold to tourists. And anyway, as a vegetarian, I think the *entire* meat industry is disgusting and immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just blown away by the irony of a nation that ran an international network of secret prisons and tortures people lecturing another country on morality.
Re: (Score:2)
Heyrðu, (th)ú sagði "we" - ertu kannski Íslendingur? :) Ég bý í Kópavogi.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been to both Iceland and Hawaii.
If I was going to live in either I'd choose Hawaii. Much warmer, 4 times the population and much more to see and do.
Ultimately though it's still small and boring after a few weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
..and no jobs, away from everything and expensive.
anyhow, usa already has iceland military-wise. they just didn't want to keep a base there anymore, hence the "we tried to give it".
Re: (Score:2)
No jobs? Iceland has a lower unemployment rate than the US. Away from everything? Perhaps *immediately* away from everything but it's a nice, convenient halfway point between North America and Europe, increasing travel options. Expensive? On the upper end, but not ridiculously so (we're only the 8th most expensive cost of living in Europe). Some things are surprisingly cheap over here compared to America, like utilities and (excellent) dairy products.
Re:Iceland (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from the US embassy here, you'd think the US already did ;) It's the most paranoid place in the country. Concrete barriers in the front, armed security guards (even *pepper spray* is illegal here, the police don't even carry it**), etc. You could take all the pictures you want with a telephoto lens of any Icelandic government building, coast guard ships, etc, but if you snap a cell phone camera picture on the same street of the embassy and don't hightail it out of there, you'll be approached by the guards and they won't be happy. The embassy got in trouble about six months back for spying on all the homes and businesses in a several block radius.
As for the concept of a Wikileaks person being in parliament, don't be shocked. Members of the Al(th)ing are mostly pretty walk-of-life people. Everyone here is connected anyway and it's all pretty casual. On 1st may, for example, I walked right into a Samfylkingin meeting from off the street and sat down a couple tables over from the prime minister (could have sat closer if I wanted to). And there were little kids running around in the room playing. People take "celebrity" and "status" in stride. The joke here is, what does an Icelander do if he sees someone famous on the street? He walks up to them and asks them if they wants *his* autograph. ;)
Oh, and Slashdot? It's not 1992; implement proper unicode support already so that I can type a proper thorn.
** - Not only is pepper spray illegal, but tear gas has been used just twice in the history of the country. And people here talk about it like using it was the greatest war crime imaginable ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not... [grapevine.is]
Rome (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is like the modern day Roman Empire. Eventually, the rest of the world will get tired of being bullied by the US and stand up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's an interesting alternative history of the fall of the Roman Empire. What science fiction book is it from?
Re: (Score:2)
Roman history in science fiction? And yeah, pigs fly.
Re: (Score:3)
Roman history in science fiction?
Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov
And yeah, pigs fly.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/ [airforce-technology.com] ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, all those tribes sure loved the Romans! I guess that's why they migrated into the Roman lands. And killed a lot of Romans.
But yeah; the comparison with the US is inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's why they migrated into Roman lands. They wanted to become Romans. Rome was seen as wealthy and prosperous, even late in it's existence. Many of the invasions were of large groups that were tired of being kept on the margins. They decided to force their way into Rome.
A great analogy I heard once compared the barbarian hordes invading Rome to Okies invading California.
Re:Rome (Score:4, Informative)
Weird, I didn't know "the rest of the world will get tired of being bullied [...] and stand up" was synonymous with "fragment under it's own mass and economically stagnate when a system hinged on continual expansion and conquest is halted, eventually being broken by displaced tribes to the north who were themselves being pushed out by a stronger expansionistic empire, although one major fragment survived for hundreds more years before finally being conquered by yet another expansionistic empire".
Re: (Score:2)
Or we find out everyone in the US has been drinking lead-tainted water.
And that's when the barbarians show up...
Re: (Score:2)
Well one of the problems the Roman Empire suffered from at its end, was a reliance on hired foreign mercenaries rather than a strong army of primarily Romans. They hired a lot of those barbarian types to defend the border - then those barbarians had their cousins show up in town...
The US still has the strongest armed forces in the world, and the Romans didn't have a superweapon equivalent to nuclear arms so the analogy is kinda weak of course, but if the US ever starts relying on hired military contractors
Re:Rome (Score:5, Funny)
Only difference is the Romans had a period of civilisation between their rise and fall, the US didnt.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is like the modern day Roman Empire. Eventually, the rest of the world will get tired of being bullied by the US and stand up.
The Western Empire had a 500 year run.
The Eastern Empire survived and prospered for the better part of 1,000 years after that.
Iceland has a population of 320,000. The Iceland parliament 63 members. That implies that each member of parliament represents about 5,000 people --- about the size of an upstate suburban township in New York.
There is no guarantee that the European Union will survive the year in its present form.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An apt analogy, but your history isn't quite right. The Roman Empire was cosmopolitan and the center of commerce and culture in the world. Tribes and kings outside the Roman empire were jealous and decided to take their cut by force. Rome's citizens had gotten tired of maintaining a strong military and were unable to defend Rome. The result was worldwide collapse and the Dark Ages.
And you're right, history may be repeating itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The above was put more bluntly as "barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization" - but that comment was very early in the last century when the most visible Americans noticed in Europe were "robber barons", outright organised crime figures or obviously easily bought politicians.
Preposterous! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no secret grand jury investigation! I dare you to find the documentation! Besides, there's no place on the Internet where anyone could publish such a damning LEAK! No news site, message board, not even any sort of WIKI.
Re: (Score:2)
International Parliamentarian Union?? (Score:2, Troll)
I'm pretty aware for an American, but this is the first time I've heard of the IPU. How much less relevant, then, than the UN?
Of course it's a vendetta (Score:5, Insightful)
But by de facto torture of Manning and by making an example of Assange (they hope, if they can get their hands on him) they figure they can "discourage" repeat embarrassments.
Because that's all they are: embarrassed. I didn't see anything come out we didn't already know. All Wikileaks did was provide hard evidence of the obvious.
Goes both ways (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Goes both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
He takes the view that the US is a big bully
He and the other 5,650,000,000 people.
and has made statements about being on a mission to stop "two wars" (i.e. the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan)
Why would that be illegal? Publishing US secrets was not a crime for Assange because he haven't signed on the dotted line. Manning did, and he is being punished for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange choice of spelling of Björk. It's not even a transliteration designed to get the pronunciation right; that'd be something like "Byerk". And if you wanted to have English cursing written in Icelandic, the correct way to write it would be "fökk". A word that's used not so rarely by Icelanders ;)
Re: (Score:2)
While we're far from "nothing but ice and all" up here, I've never seen a tennis court here. Oh, I'm sure they exist (I'm not a "gym" person), but just saying, it's far from a ubiquitous sport. Now, handball...